I make more than twice what some other folks in my department and with the same job title do. I am worth that much more to the company.
I have no experience with French tax structure.
You guys are missing the point. I’m not mad at him or jealous of him. He’s just taking what’s given to him, it’s not his fault.
We have the same paygrade, that means our base salary is identical. But he gets 300 extra per month per kid, and 600 extra per month per kid that is of school age, and 500 extra per month for having a wife who is dependent of him. Add that all up for three kids who are all in school, and it’s a shitload of extra pay. None of these allowances are subject to tax at all. It all just really, really weird to me. Unfathomable, actually.
I don’t remember the value of any of the allowances that I had seen at other companies. I don’t want to specify what company I’m working for - for all I know, he might be reading this thread right now.
Well, you could come back to work in the USA where we don’t have any such malarkey.
Is this where I say I’ve never heard of anything like this at all? He gets hundreds of dollars a month extra money in his pocket and the IRS doesn’t tax it?
In support of children I would normally say that the children of today are the adults who are performing every service and creating every product that one could hope to use when you are an old person.
However, I’m just totally confused by the situation.
This is the concept of the “family wage”, and there’s certainly nothing new about it:
The current incarnation of the “family wage” is the so-called marital wage premium, which is generally ascribed to a variety of factors including greater productivity and longer hours worked by married men:
Maybe, but that article deals with wage level and the OP states the base pay is identical but his company (& France) give his peer X thousand dollars more based on number of school children and a dependant wife. Now in Canada my family gets a child benefit check but that’s outside my pay check and the various payroll taxes on it. It’s just weird.
It’s weird to all of us in part because you won’t tell us where the hell this is supposedly happening. Nobody else has heard of a company paying people for having kids. I’m not even clear on what country you’re in or what “300 extra a month” represents in currency. How’re we supposed to comment on or sympathize with something nobody has any experience with?
I mean, maybe your employer is batshit insane, in which case you really should consider switching companies.
Are you leaving out some salient information, here, Defective Detective? Could it possibly be that you and your co-worker are both expats, being paid an identical rate for doing an identical job and paying identical tax on it, but being paid different non-taxable allowances according to your personal circumstances in order to induce you to accept an expatriate job?
'Cause, you know, the amount you have to pay somebody in order to induce him to accept a job which affects his personal and family life in a fairly profound way is going to be rationally related to the circumstances of his personal and family life.
The point is, what you describe is uncommon, and in the EU (where you say you are) is in principle unlawful (paying more or less wages on account of a worker’s marital or family status is unlawful discrimination just as much as paying more or less wages on account of a worker’s gender.) Plus, from what you say, the additional allowances paid to your co-worker are not taxable which, if they were wages, they normally would be.
So I am convinced that there is some additional factor here which is relevant to what is going on that you have omitted to mention. Rack your brains, and try and think what it might be.
Now me, I would worry a lot about a co-worker who is looking at and memorizing the figures on my pay stub.
He told us he’s in France.
Here you’re assuming that his pay is based on his value to the company, which in the US we like to think is the ideal, but it seems that may not apply to France.
Okay, but in Post 10 he says the difference is “in dollars,” which is not the currency they use in France. In Post 12 he says his experience is “mainly in the US” and refers to the IRS not taxing “allowances” for having children (which isn’t consistent with actual tax law.)
Where are the two of you from? Could he be getting paid allowances for having to move his family there? If a person has to move somewhere to work for a couple years, they often get allowances depending on their situation. A single guy might get his salary plus a housing allowance. A family might get more. Someone who lives locally might not get anything except their salary.
Yeah, that sounds like its possible if they are both expats - that with kids, he is getting a bonus to have them in a private school that teaches in English, where if he’d stayed in the states, his local public school could have been quite good. He’d need more bedrooms to make the move possible.
I seriously doubt that he was given more pay because he has a family. More likely explanations are that he has more experience, or is better educated, or has more skills, or is just a better negotiator. Or maybe he just got lucky during the interview process.
Pay grades, at least where I work, have a pretty big latitude in the actual salary paid. I am a state employee and the research facility where I work has a very flat hierarchy. We only have 3 or 4 pay grades an most of us, probably around 75%, have the same classification or pay grade and our salaries are determined by state regulations. Even with that, our salaries vary by more than 100% of the minimum salary in the grade. I believe that the lowest salary in my classification is around $40k per year, while the highest is around $150k per year. The next higher classification seems to go from ~$100k / year to $500k / year. YMMV and all that.
Regarding taxes, are you surprised that there are more deductions when you have a family? Are you sure that his tax rate is actually lower, or is he just taking out more and will have a bigger tax bill at the end of the year? I don’t know how these things work in France, but in the states this is a possibility.
To the OP. Trust me, as a married guy with kids, but used to be single, you still have more money left at the end of the month than he has.
This happens in the US as well, in the form of employer(and taxpayer)-subsidized health care. My large employer (and the federal government) subsidizes about 3/4 of the health insurance premium, single or family, for employees. The average premium of a family plan exceeds that of a single plan by US$10,000/year (http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/single-coverage/), which means that an employee with a family covered by my employor in health insurance is compensated ~$7500 more a year than one without. For the same job title and performance. This is clearly familial status discrimination and should be illegal. It is also de-facto sex discrimination since men are much more likely to have non-working spouse covered on our employer’s insurance.
I think the factual answer here is that the OP is grossly underselling his services. The co-worker gets the right pay, but the OP has accepted half pay. This is neither the company’s nor the co-worker’s fault.
What is your suggestion for how we as a society pay for the health care of children? If you’re suggesting going to a single-payer system, then of course I support you–but under that system childless folks are still paying for kids’ health care, just as folks with children pay for kids’ health care.
Thing is, as a society we’ve decided that it’s unworkable to place the entire financial burden for taking care of a kid on the kid’s primary caregivers; we’ve decided to spread that cost around. Our way of handling health care, primarily through employers, is idiotic and a bureaucratic nightmare. This apparent inequality is not an actual inequality, but is simply a result of trying to reach a social good (making sure all kids have good health care without bankrupting their caregivers) given the bad system we have.
Leaving aside my disagreement with calling something de facto discrimination when the difference is based solely on personal choices, the fact that men are more likely to have a non-working spouse may not mean a thing. You most likely have no idea of the gender breakdown of people who insure their working spouse under your company’s plan because it’s better or cheaper than what the spouse can get, or the gender breakdown of unmarried people who insure their children under your company’s plan.